Hello World

[MikeD]

Even when the Public is paying for the entire system in question?

We've been doing this for a very long time, I just don't have the opinion that its the right course for our country, in light of the spirit woven into our Constitution, or the spirit woven into the Declaration of Independence.

On matters such as pure information related to the facts of an incident involving an aircraft, I believe The People can sort out for themselves their level of interest. I doubt seriously that anybody other than pilots, or those seeking to become pilots, would even bother to visit the NTSB website to read its archives.

But, if there is information contained in the CVR that helps the public better understand how they are being protected, or how they were not protected (as the case may be), then shouldn't the public have at least the opportunity to determine that for itself - or should that kind of information be concealed from them, merely because somebody else might lose their job in reprisal - which by the way, can and should be dealt with in a court of law, on whatever grounds that such reprisal violates either State and/or Federal law?

If I'm going to err on this, then I want to err on the side where the Public is well informed, where its safety might be at risk of the causation being studied by the authority established by the Public for such purposes.

I just think that in our society right now, there is a deep crying out for more, not less transparency on many different levels where the public safety and public trust in involved, IMHO.

MercFE beat me to it with the explanation. Do not mix legal and safety channels. They're oil and water.

 

[RVSM]

Don't disagree with anything stated, except one small part...

Everything should be open to the public to be investigated and discovered. However, use of safety investigations is not the place to do it. A criminal or civil action investigation is.

Indeed, I agree with that 100%. Maybe I misread, or misinterpreted your meaning of "protections," or MikeD's interpretation of "sanctity." Absolutely, let the investigators investigate and do their job - I've no issues with that at all.

I just think that their charter is also to inform the public. Not necessarily to educate the public - but to inform it. I think the individual is responsible for their own education - but I believe the individual needs to have a place of education, in which to derive their education (redundancy intended). In that light, I simply thought that the investigating organization could do as much as reasonably possible to make relevant information available to the public, so that it can educate itself.

I certainly don't want the fact finding process to be hindered by anyone, as that serves no one in the long run.

The two incidents that I have been a part of both caused large amounts of damage to military aircraft, which are for all intents and purposes public property. It is important for those that come after me to understand and learn from my mistakes. If I withhold that info, no one benefits. However, to use what I provide or is discovered, under the guise of a safety investigation, to hold me liable for any errors would completely undermine the whole safety program concept.

My statements were about Commercial and General Aviation Accidents in Public Places.

If the United States Military is involved in an aviation accident on Federal Property, then that seems to be a matter of Military Jurisdiction and thus, a matter best dealt with by the Military. I have zero problems with that whatsoever. Whatever core competencies brought by the military to resolve such matters and make adjustments (improvements to safety of flight), should be engaged and I trust that they are engaged in such matters.

But, what happens when a Military Aircraft causes (using your words) "large amounts of damage to military aircraft" AND to personal property, while over flying the public en route? I think this presents an interesting question: Should the public have the right to all evidence involved, including but not limited to CVR data?

In that case, we'd be talking about a piece of military equipment. We could be talking about the entire aircraft. These are very interesting questions, indeed. These events have happened in the past - most recently (I believe) was a an F-18 Hornet having gone down directly on top of a Multi-Unit, Multi-Family Apartment Building/Condo. I forget exactly where, but I know it was not long ago. I believe in that case, the USN stepped in fairly quickly to offer reparations for damages, but I did not follow the entire story through to its final conclusion, if there was one.

As I said before... Two investigations for an incident should be understood and tolerated. However, their paths do not need to meet.

I actually have no problem with that and I think the matter of building-in stronger flight safety through information that comes out of one investigation process makes sense. However, in cases where the public was physically and/or psychological impacted negatively, then I believe the public should have the right to all information related to their future safety at a minimum.

As I said, if the matter is contained on Federal property used for military purposes, where the military is involved in operating an aircraft, then that should be investigated and aired out among the military entities designated for such purposes. The public, through its support for political candidates can make changes in how the military conducts such operations, but that comes with a vote AND the understanding that some tax dollars will result in such incidents and accidents along the way. The public has to maintain "common sense" about such military operations, IMO.

 

[MikeD]

Indeed, I agree with that 100%. Maybe I misread, or misinterpreted your meaning of "protections," or MikeD's interpretation of "sanctity." Absolutely, let the investigators investigate and do their job - I've no issues with that at all.

I just think that their charter is also to inform the public. Not necessarily to educate the public - but to inform it. I think the individual is responsible for their own education - but I believe the individual needs to have a place of education, in which to derive their education (redundancy intended). In that light, I simply thought that the investigating organization could do as much as reasonably possible to make relevant information available to the public, so that it can educate itself.

I certainly don't want the fact finding process to be hindered by anyone, as that serves no one in the long run.

The public does get informed. That's what the NTSB report does. The reports are complete, without the need for CVR recordings being made public.

My statements were about Commercial and General Aviation Accidents in Public Places.

If the United States Military is involved in an aviation accident on Federal Property, then that seems to be a matter of Military Jurisdiction and thus, a matter best dealt with by the Military. I have zero problems with that whatsoever. Whatever core competencies brought by the military to resolve such matters and make adjustments (improvements to safety of flight), should be engaged and I trust that they are engaged in such matters.

But, what happens when a Military Aircraft causes (using your words) "large amounts of damage to military aircraft" AND to personal property, while over flying the public en route? I think this presents an interesting question: Should the public have the right to all evidence involved, including but not limited to CVR data?

In that case, we'd be talking about a piece of military equipment. We could be talking about the entire aircraft. These are very interesting questions, indeed. These events have happened in the past - most recently (I believe) was a an F-18 Hornet having gone down directly on top of a Multi-Unit, Multi-Family Apartment Building/Condo. I forget exactly where, but I know it was not long ago. I believe in that case, the USN stepped in fairly quickly to offer reparations for damages, but I did not follow the entire story through to its final conclusion, if there was one.

The answer to your bolded is no. Protection of evidence for flight safety purposes is paramount. A separate report is generated by a separate accident team, one that's tied to the JAG rather than tied to anything safety related, and its their job to find fault for punitive purposes. Their report is the public one, not certain portions of the safety report. I've worked both teams, and they each have different roles and responsibilities.

I actually have no problem with that and I think the matter of building-in stronger flight safety through information that comes out of one investigation process makes sense. However, in cases where the public was physically and/or psychological impacted negatively, then I believe the public should have the right to all information related to their future safety at a minimum..

Items like the needing to hear the actual CVR, do nothing for general public knowledge, nor for any public knowledge. A transcript will suffice, and these are found in the reports themselves. Needing to hear the actual CVR itself is nothing more than satisfying someone's macabre sense of need.

 

[TripSix]

Items like the needing to hear the actual CVR, do nothing for general public knowledge, nor for any public knowledge. A transcript will suffice, and these are found in the reports themselves. Needing to hear the actual CVR itself is nothing more than satisfying someone's macabre sense of need.

This. A written transcript provides the factual information. I have never heard, in my opinion, a single valid reason or benefit for the audio vs the transcript.

Facts are derived from what is said, not the tone of voice in which it is said.

In regards to the public "right to know," FOIA the transcript (or just wait until the NTSB releases it). The facts are in the text, the lack audio takes nothing from that.

 

[RVSM]

Items like the needing to hear the actual CVR, do nothing for general public knowledge, nor for any public knowledge. A transcript will suffice, and these are found in the reports themselves. Needing to hear the actual CVR itself is nothing more than satisfying someone's macabre sense of need.

I think I've already stipulated that one can make a claim relative to the text of an audio transcript, whereupon subsequent review of the actual source audio, the claim itself is proven to be incorrect. I worked five (5) years in a District Attorney's Office and saw this happen on more than a few occasions.

So, without assigning any ulterior motive to anyone, or without attempting to impune and/or reproach anyone, I can say that such differentials in the interpretation resulted in the mere reading of a document, as opposed to the actual hearing of the audio from which the text is derived, often times makes an enormous differenced in the general knowledge of those having to make a determination as to the facts of the case.

In the case where a military aircraft causes damage to the public in a time of peace, the JAG Officer has no duty to the general public, nor to any private citizen by law. JAG, has a duty only to the command that it is assigned to, and only to the extent to which that duty can be carried out under the UCMJ. A JAG Officer can "advise" their command on certain matters involving civil law, but once the Shiite hits the fan, an FDO of some kind will have long since taken over the case.

I don't mean to wax legal. I'm currently working on my fourth career and the way I ended up in a DA's office, is a bit non-conforming and unconventional given my academic background being what it is (technical, not legal). All I am saying is that, whatever it takes to secure the interest of The People, should be paramount above all. When you start putting other things over the interest The People, you help to pave the road to tyranny in such expensive material that no nation can afford to pay for it.

Again, if Commercial -vs- The People, then inform the people as concretely as possible. If Military -vs- The People, then inform the people as concretely as possible without endangering the people by exposing genuine matters of national security.

Nothing is more important than The People. Whenever we fail to remember that, we fail to remember why our nation exists - on all levels, not just aircraft accidents. That's why I say, be careful of the slippery slope when concealing information that the public pays for with their tax dollars. We all have to remember that the nation belongs to The People.

 

[RVSM]

Facts are derived from what is said, not the tone of voice in which it is said.

If you ever get the chance to sit in a court room and hear just the reading of a transcript taken from an audio recording, then listen carefully to counsel give their interpretation of that transcript - and then listen to the actual audio as the opposing counsel plays it in the court room, you might come away with a different opinion about what's technically sufficient and what actually helps a jury make a decision based on the facts.

If I've seen it happen once, I've seen it happen a thousand times before.

Anyway, this dialog has been interesting. Thanks.

 

[MikeD]

I don't mean to wax legal. I'm currently working on my fourth career and the way I ended up in a DA's office, is a bit non-conforming and unconventional given my academic background being what it is (technical, not legal). All I am saying is that, whatever it takes to secure the interest of The People, should be paramount above all. When you start putting other things over the interest The People, you help to pave the road to tyranny in such expensive material that no nation can afford to pay for it.

Again, if Commercial -vs- The People, then inform the people as concretely as possible. If Military -vs- The People, then inform the people as concretely as possible without endangering the people by exposing genuine matters of national security.

Nothing is more important than The People. Whenever we fail to remember that, we fail to remember why our nation exists - on all levels, not just aircraft accidents. That's why I say, be careful of the slippery slope when concealing information that the public pays for with their tax dollars. We all have to remember that the nation belongs to The People.

I agree. And the people are informed concretely by the text contained in the transcripts, which is just the same as the audio itself. There is nothing more gained for the lay public by hearing CVR audio, other than a macabre aspect.

Again, don't mistake the legal field with the safety field when it comes to investigations; they're oil and water. They don't mix.

 

[TripSix]

If you ever get the chance to sit in a court room and hear just the reading of a transcript taken from an audio recording, then listen carefully to counsel give their interpretation of that transcript - and then listen to the actual audio as the opposing counsel plays it in the court room, you might come away with a different opinion about what's technically sufficient and what actually helps a jury make a decision based on the facts.

If I've seen it happen once, I've seen it happen a thousand times before.

Anyway, this dialog has been interesting. Thanks.

MikeD is marking the distinction between the legal arm and the safety arm a lot more eloquently and politely than I can.

Those distinctions are so critical it is the reason why the NTSB (investigative body) is separate from the FAA (the legal body).

As far as suggesting that I sit in a court room, as it may change my opinion? Ironic, doing that very thing is exactly why I feel CVR audio does not belong in a court room, on the local news, or on YouTube. ATC audio? Knock yourself out. CVR? No, just no.

 

[RVSM]

Got it.